- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
The night the election turned
Posted By Janet Porter On 08/19/2008 @ 12:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
Even commentators on CNN were calling Obama “Dukakasy.” Fox reporters were offering excuses for Obama’s poor performance, claiming he was all tuckered out from all that vacationing he’s been doing in Hawaii. Poor guy. Taking a week off at the beach can really drain you. And now they’re claiming that for McCain to do so well he must have cheated. Pleeeease.
If you missed the debate, let me summarize it for you. When it comes to being president, Obama admitted he’s not up for the job.
When asked the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Obama said the answer “is above my pay grade.”
Let’s see, a U.S. senator makes about $170,000 a year. The president of the United States makes $400,000 a year. A 12-year-old paperboy makes about $1,704 a year and is fully capable of pulling a biology book off any shelf in any library and discovering the answer to that question. It’s the answer even the nation’s largest abortionist, Planned Parenthood, has publicly admitted. It’s the answer Sen. John McCain knew without hesitation: life begins “at conception.” It’s not debatable; it’s no longer in dispute. McCain gets it – that’s why he has a consistent 25-year pro-life voting record.
But Obama makes a strong and compelling case against us giving him a raise. By his own admission, Barack Obama is out of his league and doesn’t deserve a promotion.
Even the network and cable commentators are starting to get it. Words used to describe the candidates following the debate include:
For McCain: “substance,” “experience,” “real,” “patriotism,” “depth,” “honest,” “upfront” and “forthright.”
For Obama: “lightweight,” “fluff,” “avoidance,” “stumbling,” “shallow,” with “basic questions above his pay grade.”
The real answer Obama should have given – one that accurately reflects his record – to the question “At what point does a baby receive human rights?” is … “NEVER – not at conception, not in the first, second, or third trimester; not when the baby’s three-quarters of the way delivered; not even at birth – as he voted four times as an Illinois state senator against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (Listen to Jill Stanek’s presentation of the facts on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday.)
Then he had the audacity to call National Right to Life a “liar” because the organization exposed him. He claims the state bill that would have protected infants who survived an abortion from homicide was different than the federal bill. Sorry. While we can’t say the same for the candidate, the records don’t lie. It was the same bill with the same language.
This guy is even more pro-death than NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, which didn’t oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He is to the left of every senator in the United States Senate, who uniformly said we could recognize that if a baby survives an abortion, if he’s completely separated from the mother, we can protect that child. But not Barack Obama. He’s the only senator in the entire State Senate in Illinois who actually stood on the floor and spoke against protecting babies who were born alive. He apparently would prefer those live infants be tossed in the soiled-laundry room as it was discovered to be the practice.
On marriage, John McCain said that he would not only support the state’s definitions of marriage between a man and a woman, as he has done in his own state of Arizona (and a Federal Marriage Amendment if state laws are overturned), but he also made it very clear that the Supreme Court of California was “wrong” to undermine the will of the people and redefine marriage.
What Barack Obama left out of his answer was that he actually publicly praised the Supreme Court of California. He said he “supported” it. To call yourself pro-marriage between a man and a woman and support the California court’s decision that redefined it to include two men or two women is like saying, “I’m against slavery, but I support the Dred Scott decision.” It’s an absurd, hypocritical position, but he wasn’t called on that.
Obama said he opposed Justice Clarence Thomas because he didn’t have enough “experience.” Rather ironic for a guy that’s served all of 143 days in the U.S. Senate, don’t you think?
Then, Obama paraphrased Matthew (25:40): “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Also ironic considering that Obama has turned his back on the all those who reside in the womb, those living, kicking half-born babies, infants who are completely born, and those disabled and dependent on our help to provide them food and water, the Terri Schiavos of the world. (Obama said his greatest regret was voting with the Senate to give Schiavo water). So much for his interest in protecting the least of these.
When claiming to be a Christian, Obama himself said we should express our faith with more than just words but “deeds.” Really? Another verse comes to mind: Mark 7:6:
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honor Me with their lips, but their heart (and perhaps voting records?) is far from Me.’”
On life, marriage, judges, experience, drilling, wealth redistribution and school choice (just to name a few), McCain is right and Obama is wrong … dead wrong. When he’s so wrong on so many things, it’s crystal clear he doesn’t deserve a promotion or an increase in his pay grade. Ask any 12-year-old.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/72729/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.